SHRI. SANDEEP VIJ, MUMBAI V. ITO 25 (1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6760/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6467 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 31-10-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench, Mumbai Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) I.T.A. No. 6760/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11) Shri Sandeep Vij C-101, Baba Sadan Four Bunglows Ratan Nagar Andheri West Mumbai-400 053. PAN : ADNPV330R Vs. ITO-25(1)(1) Kautilaya Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra East Mumbai-400 051. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Shri Vivek Upadhyay Date of Hearing 16.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement 16.08.2022 O R D E R The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 1.11.2018 passed by learned CIT(A)-53, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2010-11. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of learned CIT(A) in partially confirming the assessment of Rs. 17,71,900/- relating to unexplained bank deposit. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, even though hearing was adjourned last time at the specific request of assessee. Hence, I proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without presence of the assessee. 3. I heard learned DR and perused the record. The appeal is barred by limitation by 110 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the delay in filing the appeal. It is stated that the order of learned Commissioner was communicated to the Chartered Accountant of the assessee and delay has occurred due to communication gap between the assessee and his Chartered Accountant. Having regard to the submissions made in the affidavit, I condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. Shri Sandeep Vij 2 4. I noticed that the Assessing Officer was constrained to pass the order to the best of his Judgment under section 144 of the I.T. Act, since the assessee did not cooperate with the Assessing Officer, before learned CIT(A) also the assessee did not appear and hence, he has partly confirmed the addition relating to cash deposit. 5. Since the assessee has not appeared before the tax authorities, in the interest of natural justice, I am of the view that this issue needs to be restored to the file of learned CIT(A) for adjudicating it afresh after hearing the assessee. However, I am of the view that the assessee should imposed a cost for being delinquent before the tax authorities. Accordingly, I impose a cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two thousand) upon the assessee, which shall be paid to the credit of Income Tax Department within two months from the date of receipt of this order. Subject to the payment of above cost, I set aside the order passed by learned CIT(A) and restore all the issues to his file for adjudicating them afresh after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Before taking up the appeal for hearing, the Ld CIT(A) may satisfy himself that the assessee has paid the above mentioned cost. I also direct the assessee to fully cooperate with learned CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the appeal. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 16.08.2022. Sd/- (B.R. BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated : 16/08/2022 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent Shri Sandeep Vij 3 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) PS ITAT, Mumbai